I have to admit that I didn't read the article until this post brought it to my attention. After reading it, I thought it was pretty good if you're interested in what happened to Steyr. I viewed it more as a "Steyr's Back" article than a all-out gun review. Not to mention, when you have that many guns in one article it's hard to get too specific. Not trying to defend the author or the magazine here, but trying to write an article with limited word count due to page space is a pretty hard thing to do sometimes. Maybe I'm way off base and maybe the article does suck for those who are really into weaponry and the techs/specs behind them, but for me, as an average reader and shooter, I enjoyed the piece after I read it. The problem with most gun reviews, IMO, is when a reviewer starts talking about how good the groups are and all the technical data then it's all subjective, since my handling of the same piece may have huge variances. Especially since I'm no high-speed trained shooter. I'm the type reader that says "give me the basics in the article" and I'll go out and decide for myself whether it's right for me. Again, not trying to defend anyone here but writing, to me, is a hard thing to do when it comes to magazines.

On the bright side, you have to admit that was one cool photo on the 2-page spread holding the Steyr. Don't know who shot it, but it caught my eye.